Talk:Continuity correction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

It's darn useful that this article brought my attention to this issue, as I have a binomial implementation which appears to delegate to Poisson without the correction.

Aside from the lack of references, an expert might add a sentence or two motivating why the continuity correction is required. MaxEnt 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this a little deeper.
It's not that I don't find the geometric argument compelling, it's that I don't find it obvious that the 'corrected' function dominates the uncorrected function (ie. that the CC normal curve is better approx. to the binomial than un-CC normal for all integers x); nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC; is it not that CC dominates non-CC everywhere except finitely many exceptions? Is that the point of this? MaxEnt 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I thought it was obvious why the corrected version is better than the uncorrected normal. Maybe I'll add something explicit on this. But I don't understand what is meant by the following words:

nor is it obvious there is anything wrong with the implied binomial mass distribution for un-CC

What does that mean?? Michael Hardy 00:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)